The Supreme Court issued an interim injunction forbidding continuation of work in the Arab outpost near the village of Beit Iksa between Mevasseret Zion and Ramot in Jerusalem.

Judge Noam Solberg ruled that a panel of three justices would discuss the request of the petitioner, the Regavim movement, to impose a fine for the work performed by the defendant who ignored a temporary injunction forbidding continued construction.

Beit Iksa village is located west of Jerusalem, opposite Har Hamenuhot and adjacent to the suburg of Mevasseret Zion and the Ramot neighborhood, but from a statutory point of view it is defined as located in the area of Judea and Samaria. Therefore, relevant enforcement authorities are under the responsibility of the Defense Ministry and Civil Administration.

In March, Regavim petitioned the Supreme Court to immediately halt construction and development of the Arab outpost that was being built near the entrance to the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem line new railway tunnel and the railway bridge over the Arazim Valley, only about eighty yards from the tunnel.

"As appears in the inspector's report, development work on the outskirts of Beit Iksa continues, by building walls of terraces and boulders, filling the area with soil, and planting trees," wrote Solberg in his decision, and issued an interim injunction against the person responsible for construction work there.The interim injunction requires the Arab to "refrain from carrying out construction work and preparing land on the outskirts of Beit Iksa until a contrary decision is issued."

In addition, Judge Solberg ruled that a panel of three justices would discuss Regavim's request to impose a monetary fine on the Arab, in accordance with section 6 of the Court's contempt order, after he continued to carry out work despite a previous decision by the court forbidding further construction.

"For many months, an illegal neighborhood has been established very close to the most important railway line of the State of Israel," says Avi Segal of the Regavim movement. "The court also understood that this was a criminal who systematically disregarded Supreme Court decisions, and therefore forbade further work. We expect the Supreme Court to instruct enforcement authorities to carry out their mission in a determined and conclusive manner, so that it serves as a deterrent to other criminals."